One of the abiding mysteries of UK politics is why our most prominent politicians and media people are so very pro American in their outlook. The talk of a "special relationship" is bad enough: but the spectacle of the "Anglo American" model which pervades our economic policy and our foreign policy and much of our cultural life is peculiar. We are, after all, a European country: yet we hear relatively little about Europe, and most of what we do hear is not good.
I mentioned in another thread that some of our young graduates, identified as likely to be future leaders, are offered something called a Kennedy Fellowship. But I did not know that this kind of thing does not stop there. It seems there is also something called the British American Project
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British-Ameri...ct#Organisation"A US BAP organiser describes the BAP network as committed to “grooming leaders” while promoting “the leading global role that [the US and Britain] continue to play”
I do not wish to get all conspiratorial about this: there are some in public life who promote British Israeli friendship and there are those who promote British Arab relations and relations with Europe etc. But there are none which boast so many prominent figures as the BAP does, I think
Why do I mention this now? Why in this thread?
Well those of you who take no interest in the forthcoming referendum on Scottish indpendence will have missed some of the recent rows which made news here. But they are not without interest
Recently the three main UK parties made a big splash about the fact that they are all agreed that should Scotland vote yes the rUK will not agree to a currency union. It is shorthanded as "Scotland will not be able to use the £" and it is important because it is the policy of the SNP, and therefore of the current Scottish Government, that they will seek monetary union if the vote is Yes. The media made huge play of this and it seems that they expected this to have a big effect on public opinion and on voting intentions. The decision was unequivocal, and Mr Osborne took the very unusual step of publishing Treasury advice in support of that decision: something virtually unheard of in our system.
In the event it had none of the impact they expected it to have, at least according to the polls: not on Scottish people. We cannot be sure why not but there are a number of things which may be in play. For one, those same polls show that the people do not believe it, or much else that comes out of their mouths. For another, people are not so wedded to the £ as they appear to have believed: or at least not to the £ in a CU. they are aware that anyone can use the £ as a freely traded currency. Some people are not voting on the basis of such technicalities, which they don't necessarily understand anyway. And some of us, myself included, don't agree with the policy anyway and would prefer an independent Scottish currency
Whatever the reasons for the lack of impact there have been a few further developments in this odd story. First, an anonymous politician, claimed to be a senior tory, told The Guardian that this was not in fact a firm commitment and that "of course" there would be a CU: all things would be up for negotiation if the vote was yes, he said: and that is in line with what many people thought. But the interesting thing about this is that senior government ministers do not undermine such a major plank of policy, one with apparent cross party support, by accident. Nor was it without potential political cost in rUK: because at least some of the people there took this statement very seriously indeed and are basically saying that the rUK parties will renege on this over their dead bodies.
So why did this happen? We can only guess: but one thing that was said by this anonymous minister was that Scotland wants a CU, and rUK wants to keep Trident at Faslane so "you could see the outlines of a deal".
This led me to think again about why the rUK is so keen to discourage a yes vote: after all we are told that Scotland is a drain on UK resource - we are subsidy junkies, as was discussed on the first page of this thread.
I have reasons aplenty to believe that is a lie: but the fact remains that there will be economic consequences if Scotland chooses independence, for both countries. It is likely to be a bumpy ride. Yet they are not insurmountable in the scheme of things. Not sufficient to justify the virtually universal opposition to independence in the UK political and media world
But they have nowhere to put Trident. And the SNP and the Scottish Government have been very consistent in saying that if Scotland becomes independent Trident must be removed from this country. I now believe that is actually one of two main reasons for that opposition, along with loss of the oil revenue.
I am somewhat confirmed in my view by a speech Lord Robertson made to the Brookings Institute and which is reported here
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/brookings-n...-united-kingdomThis is funny in some ways. You may not be aware of it but those who are telling us to vote No are members of the white queen tendency: they can all believe 6 impossible things before breakfast. This is one of them.
Normally Scots are told that if we choose independence we will lose all influence in the world because all such influence depends on our membership of the UK. We ride on the coat-tails of that entity and if we vote to dissolve the union we will become like some small insignificant country like, oh, say Montenegro in terms of influence on the world stage. An outcome some of us embrace with enthusiasm because we have no wish to follow America into immoral foreign wars, nor to "punch above our weight" as the UK politicians so fondly believe that they do.
Now Lord Robertson says that this is not only untrue: but that Scottish indepenence will threaten the stability of the whole western world. Ooooheerrrr! Never knew we had such influence, and that is largely because for my whole life the rUK has been saying we are too small and too poor to do anything much at all.
Robertson's proposition is absurd on its face. It is yet another example of what can at best be described as the confusion at the heart of the unionist stance. It is also yet another example of a recurring theme: which is that my vote should be predicated on the needs and wishes of others, and not on what is good for me and mine. It is nothing less than hilarious to find neoliberal politicians relying on the altruism their creed says does not exist.
Seems the third world war will be Scotland's fault if we vote yes. It is a hell of a responsibility: or it might be a lie. Whaddaya think?
